This article critically analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on anti-Roma violence. Its reluctance to recognise Article 14 violations in almost all involved cases stands in stark contrast with the Court’s strong rhetoric against racial discrimination. After demonstrating how the Strasbourg judges maneuvered themselves into this position, the author shows how they could change their jurisprudence. Thus, they would finally stop contributing to presenting and legally constructing Europe as a place where racial discrimination exists only in the rarest cases.

Network neutrality concerns a heated debate on the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as a potential gatekeeper for Internet access of end-users and online content providers. In line with standard practice in European telecommunications policy, the European regulatory response to the issue of network neutrality has been framed mainly in economic terms. At the same time, European civil society organisations have interpreted network neutrality in terms of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression. Moreover, while the amended regulatory framework for telecommunications now includes explicit references to fundamental rights, it remains unclear if and how fundamental rights should be applied to network neutrality disputes. This article relates network neutrality to the rich body of Article 10 case law of the European Convention on Human Rights, and asks to what extent this jurisprudence is of relevance to network neutrality discussions. The findings of this research reveal that the claim that network management by ISPs would violate end-users’ freedom of expression is less straightforward than often assumed. Moreover, the opposite case in which network neutrality regulation violates ISPs’ freedom of expression is less far-fetched than it may seem. These conclusions are meant to move the European discussion on network neutrality and fundamental rights beyond rhetoric, towards a more substantial and analytical approach.